Two Reasons Why the Golden Globes Are Silly
Let's face it: For a television fan, the Golden Globes are a fun diversion, something to help you through your winter doldrums. But in the parlance of television awards, the Globes are a distant second to the Emmys in importance, for a couple of reasons. One is timing; while it's the high season for motion pictures and their awards, the Globes come a couple of months after TV's Emmy and premiere-laden peak period.But the second reason is that the nomination list is often very silly.
As much as the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has tried to buckle down over the last few years and give nominations to people that actually deserved them, there is one or two head-scratchers on the nomination list every year, and this year is no different. A couple of reasons why the Globe nominations always seem to look silly:
Attention-grabbing nominations and snubs: Did you do the same triple-take I did when I saw the list of nominees? Given the number of outstanding dramas that graced our TVs this past year, it's almost understandable that a show like 'Breaking Bad' could be left off.
The five nominees for Best Drama Series all deserved a spot on the list, including 'The Walking Dead,' which was probably the biggest surprise. Still, it seems hard to believe that the HFPA didn't think that 'Breaking Bad' wasn't better than 'Dexter' or 'The Good Wife,' even if only by a hair.
But the nomination of Piper Perabo for 'Covert Affairs' is the real shocker here. Nothing against Perabo, but the only heavy acting load she does on 'Affairs' is jumping while shooting a gun behind her. No easy task, but not exactly worthy of being put on a list with names like Margulies, Moss, Sagal, and Sedgwick.
It feels like the HFPA gives nominations like this just to attract the wrath and indignation from the press. Remember, this is the same organization that felt that Pia Zadora was the "Best New Star" (an award that fortunately no longer exists) of 1981, so they have a long history of doing this kind of thing. What's the harm, right? They get a bunch of press and then they end up giving the award to someone who deserves it. But every time they do it, it reminds people why the Globes should never be taken as seriously as the Oscars or Emmys (which shouldn't be taken that seriously, either, but that's a subject for another post).
Everyone-in-the-pool supporting nominations: There's a good reason why the Globes combine comedy, drama, and miniseries in their supporting categories: time constraints. The motion picture nominations take a lot of the time that could be spent giving out separate supporting actor and actress awards in the TV category. The compressed nature of the Globes -- along with the buzzed, industry-party nature of the ceremony -- is what has raised the ceremony's profile over the years. It's a fun show that isn't dragged down by the boring awards the Oscars and Emmys insist on giving out.Still, it's hard to judge acting work from a drama against one from a comedy. It's equally tough to judge a performance shaped over a series of episodes against a one-off performance in a TV movie. The television nominating process gives no indication that a single episode needs to be submitted, like with the Emmys. The members of the HFPA, who are supposed to be entertainment journalists, nominate based on the overall impressions they've gathered over the last year via their work.

More From TV Squad & Moviefone:
Golden Globes TV Nominations
Golden Globes
Golden Globes Coverage
Golden Globe All Nominees
Golden Globes 2010: Best & Worst Dressed
The other by-product of this all-in-one method is that many worthy nominees get left off the list. Aaron Paul won a supporting actor Emmy for 'Breaking Bad,' didn't even get nominated for a Globe. Given his multi-layered performance last season, you'd think he'd be a shoo-in. But, then again, it's the Golden Globes. Once Piper Perabo got a nomination, all bets were off.
(Follow @joelkeller on Twitter.)

7 Comments